That's the problem with the referendum process (or as I call it, direct democracy run amok) A lot of propositions look good on paper, as long as you don't know anyone directly affected by them. So, your grandma died in a Medical nursing home of neglect and abuse because these guys robbed her of her savings with their ponzi scheme. They didn't do it with violence, so why should the State have to pay to keep them put away?

We're approaching politics here, but CA Prop 57 merely makes non-violent offenders eligible for more (future) credits against time served, and makes them eligible for parole earlier than was otherwise allowed. It does not automatically release anyone. It's up to the parole board.

Some earlier propositions in regard drug offenses did automatically reduce sentences for some non-violent drug offenders, which could have resulted in immediate release. I'm don't recall whether Proposition 64 on this ballot applied retroactively; if so, some people in jail or prison for marijuana offenses would be released.

The last little bits of financial fluff are settling down. Late last year, my friend, the one person in this drama who I cared about, responded to the "net winners" demand with a quite true "I don't have it. I used it to live." And the clawback guys said, "Yep. Don't worry about it." They've pretty much clawed back everything they're ever going to claw back.

The bank is, and rightly so, pretty much where the money is at this point. If they run true to form they will fight it as much as they can and then eventually they, or their insurance company, because like it or not they are on the hook for it, will pay out, the only question is how much.

The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Tednewsom wrote:Late last year, my friend, the one person in this drama who I cared about, responded to the "net winners" demand with a quite true "I don't have it. I used it to live." And the clawback guys said, "Yep. Don't worry about it." They've pretty much clawed back everything they're ever going to claw back.

And this is exactly why I and others contested strongly, to the point of upsetting other readers of this thread, with grimreaper over what the receiver was going to be able to claw back. There is a big difference between the actual amount owed and what can be effectively and efficiently retrieved. No competent receiver is going to pursue every net winner out there for the last penny; securing a judgment against your friend was always a legal possibility, but not an economic probability. Beyond issuing a letter to every identified net winner (to see if it will produce some funds voluntarily), a receivership simply cannot spend the thousands of dollars in chasing every one down - especially those who say they cannot pay and you have to prove that they can (in order to make the judgment worthwhile in securing). That is why the receiver focused on the big fish (those with visible assets and monies) that could potentially pay. Your friend gave the right response; its just too bad she got involved with Joel and Ed in the first place, and had to go through this nightmare.

The good news is that there is a bank that is potentially on the line for some punishment and the collection pot stands a reasonable chance getting an increase in the future.

"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff

Well, the most jaded among you insisted that the net losers would be lucky if 1% of the swag was ever recovered (a penny on the dollar was the most frequent description), and it's apparently turned out to be closer to 20%. Takes some of the sting out of being a chump. OK, it leaves 80% of the sting, but it's something.

Ted, the fact of the matter is, that in MOST all of these cases the recovery usually is pennies on the dollar, if that. No one is in the least displeased or upset that that they were able to get a fair bit of it back, or even luckier still that they were able to tie the bank in with it as essentially a co-conspirator due to dishonest agents. The fact still remains that that doesn't happen most of the time, and you all were just flat out damn lucky. So get down off your high horse and be thankful there actually was something to get back. It certainly didn't look like there would be at the start.

The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

No high horse involved. One person (not me) continued to keep the conversational door open saying there could indeed be some sort of recovery; everyone else snorted that he was a naive idiot, and if the receiver got 1% back, it'd be a miracle. Twenty cents on the dollar is still an 80% loss, but it's more than 1%. Or so I'm told.

Tednewsom wrote:No high horse involved. One person (not me) continued to keep the conversational door open saying there could indeed be some sort of recovery; everyone else snorted that he was a naive idiot, and if the receiver got 1% back, it'd be a miracle. Twenty cents on the dollar is still an 80% loss, but it's more than 1%. Or so I'm told.

And that person who continued to hold that door open claimed that there was a good chance for most if not everyone to be made whole by the clawbacks. Guess who was closer to the actual amount that can be collected - him or us? I'll give you 3 guesses and the first two don't count.

Anyone can be applauded for trying to put the best face on a situation, but that is far different than promising the sky at the expense of others who may not have to participate in a clawback - like your friend. I don't applaud people who don't know what they are talking about, who promise what cannot be delivered, who lie out of both corners of their mouths and especially those, when the horses finally reach the finish line, are nowhere to be seen to acknowledge they were wrong and take responsibility for their statements.

And when you think about it, that is exactly the kind of thing that got Joel and Ed sent up the river.

"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff

The Observer wrote:
And that person who continued to hold that door open claimed that there was a good chance for most if not everyone to be made whole by the clawbacks.

I don't think anyone here ever wrote that.

I don't applaud people who don't know what they are talking about, who promise what cannot be delivered, who lie out of both corners of their mouths and especially those, when the horses finally reach the finish line, are nowhere to be seen to acknowledge they were wrong and take responsibility for their statements.

I can see that leveled at the assorted dupes, chumps, cutouts and shills who posted pro-Joel crap early on, but no one after the collapse of the scheme.

And when you think about it, that is exactly the kind of thing that got Joel and Ed sent up the river.

That half is true. But no one here made any blue-sky promises. Held out hope, or possibilities-- yes. And as it turned out, the end result was about 20 times better than everyone expected, based on nearly every identical con.

Has anyone been involved in the "Clawback" action. Did you try to negotiate the amount owed, or has anyone used an attorney to try and reduce the amount they are asking for and have any luck? If so, please let me know the contact info of the attorney. Thanks

Here is an update on the status of civil litigation arising out of NASI Ponzi scheme:

The Madison v. City National Bank (“CNB”) class case brought on behalf of NASI net losers is pending in Federal court before Judge Otero and it remains viable as pled.

There were three state court actions pending before Judge Highberger and now there is just one. The Allison v. CNB case is brought on behalf of 40 individual investors and it remains viable.

The Nairn v. CNB case which was a purported class action has been dismissed with prejudice and the named plaintiffs ordered to pay CNB’s legal bills. The dismissal does not affect the class members who were not represented by Nairn’s counsel (Ward & Hagen) without class certification. The Nairn case is now up on appeal.

The Receiver of NASI (William Hoffman) also sued CNB in state court but that case has also been dismissed. Apparently, Hoffman will appeal. Below are rulings and transcripts in the state court regarding the Nairn v. CNB and Hoffman v. CNB cases.

I'm a bit surprised that the Receiver case got dismissed. Not because I know anything about this stuff, I would have assumed that the Receiver just kinda knows what he's doing and wouldn't bring a case if it wasn't a GOOD case. Everything he does is approved by a judge in the first place... So, to APPEAL, doesn't he still have to have a judge's permission to continue spending money? Does any of this give any hint as to probability of eventual success?

I read through the first posting of the Nairn minutes that resulted in the dismissal with prejudice and even the judge in that case admitted that the anti-SLAPP law was hard to administer (and cited other judges saying the same thing). I'm finding it hard to think that an institution (which really means the collection of shareholders) isn't somewhat responsible for NEVER, EVER over MORE THAN A DECADE, checking up on a fairly senior manager to make sure they're not engaged in shenanigans. If I was a manager who had an employee who was stealing from my clients for more than a decade because I basically let it happen by not exercising oversight, I would have to accept some responsibility. I can turn that argument around and argue that as an employee I WANT some oversight (and therefore APPROVAL) of what I'm doing so I don't have to take the blame for unknowingly doing the wrong things, that's what managers get paid for: take the responsibility! ... I'll never understand business/legal logic ....

Anyway, thanks again for providing information!

If you have to "Believe" something, that means you can't prove that it's true... please, for your own sake, speak and act accordingly...

I'm trying to get caught up on things but this bears saying early. The Receiver is looking to finish clawbacks around the end of this quarter, beginning of next. At that point, he'll file a procedure with the court to start making the victims whole....er than they were before.

Someone has reported that they got roughly 0.2% in a treasury check referencing the Dickwad Duo. I'm thinking that's part of the restitution.

Also, the receiver balance is about $28 million, with only about a million more to go. With an estimated $125 million in losses, victims might be looking at 20% recovery.